Is the NBA's salary cap too soft?

There's been a lot of complaining about the Lakers acquiring Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton, some picks, and a reach around. I don't necessarily agree with it. I can definitely see why its frustrating for other Western Conference contenders, but then again its become clear that Gasol was available for most of the season. Theoretically, any team could have made a similar offer to get him.

But, that's where I think there might be a problem. The Grizzlies owner, Michael Heisley, basically put it out there that the reason most teams didn't get him is because their owners were reluctant to pay the luxury tax. The league takes pride in its parity, but you really have to ask how level the playing field is when you have a select group of franchises that are always able to take that "next step" because of their financial situation. Its a problem that really hasn't come to light over the years, mainly because teams like San Antonio and Detroit have set an example of how to build championship teams while managing the cap. And on the flip side, people like to point to the New York Knicks as an example of how an abundance of money doesn't always translate to on-court success. That's true to a certain extent, but could you imagine if the Knicks had even a semi-competent GM instead of the braindead Isiah Thomas? If they had used the amount of money they've spent over the past 5-6 years on at least somewhat reasonable players, instead of crap on a stick? It'd be pretty unfair, wouldn't it?

So, that's the potential problem I see. In a league with an overwhelming number of cheap, money-driven owners it seems like the few teams that have owners that are willing to invest more in their franchise have a pretty big advantage (whether or not they take advantage of it is irrelevant, IMO). The rest of the GM's in the league have to scramble to construct similarly talented rosters with the added obstacle of a much stricter cap (a problem that is worse when you consider the dearth of competent GM's in the NBA). Is this a problem the NBA should try and address? And how should it be addressed?

 

The reason for the tax was to protect owners from themselves and it is working. The real goal of the tax is to drive down the number of big contracts and as you can see from the Deng, Gordon and Iggy negotiations this past summer and fall, it is working.

If in the next couple of years, salaries become normalized to the tax limit, then this really won't be much of an issue. On the other hand, what is overlooked is how much the players union screwed up by agreeing to this tax. The owners pulled a fast one on the players union and I don't expect the next round of CBA negotiations to be pretty because of this.

The tax isn't getting changed until the players union forces it to be changed as the owners are loving the tax income.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 12 2008, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>\
I think the cap really hurts the league/teams ability to draw the casual fan. In part because the cap makes it very hard to turn your product over, leaving your team in the bottom of the standings for at least 2+ seasons. Now as a casual fan, they know the players, coach, perhaps cap, but won't know the details like some of us would (of the cap). When your local team stinks do you think the casual fan would go out of their way to watch the product? Especially if their local MLB/NFL/NHL or whatever is doing much better? Now if you can't make money, can't turn over your team... what is the logical thing to do? Cut costs. But when you try, who wants your crap? No one... so you have to give up your star player for pennies on the dollar to save a buck.

Look at the Grizzles. They were over the cap, so it was hard for them to make over their team. They were at the bottom of the league in terms of revenue generated by TV/Attendance. Their owner wants to get out, no one is interested (legit buyers) in the team. Who wants any of their crap, and won't you offer them crap (Swift for Collins; Collins had a similar type deal to Swift)? The only way to clear the space is to drop your proven/desired player, Gasol for pennies on the dollar.

I think the league needs to work out a system where teams have an easier time turning over their team. I would suggest the following:

1) Enlarging the cap.
2) Raising the MLE/LLE.
3) Allow a larger percentage of difference in trades (in terms of salary).
4) Allow a team to take less of a hit on a released player, as they are already taking the penalty of paying a player not to play. This really hurts the teams in trouble already.
5) Have trade exceptions last for longer than a year, allow them to be combined w/ a player to be moved.
6) Have a tier system for FA, where teams losing a player get some type of compensation, not cash but maybe an exception, or a larger MLE/LLE.

-Petey</div>

I'm not completely into enlarging the cap, because some NBA players get paid too much as-is.

But I LOVE those last 4 ideas. Those are addressing problems that I've ALWAYS had a problem with - I mean, is there really any point in having trades as similar salary-wise as possible? IMO, that's always been a dumb rule. Same with the trade exception policy.

Also, I'd like to see the max amount players can make to be much, much less. I mean, think about it: 15 players on salary. Usually, there's 1-3 rookies. They get paid about 500k-3.6mil. Then, there's about 5-7 lower-salary players. 600k-3mil After that, you've usually got 2-5 role players. 2mil-5mil. And then, you've got your starters. There's the "supporting cast", can be from 1-4 players, for 3-6mil to go along with the stars, also 1-4 players....

With all those guys that you have to pay, I think that the max should be no higher than 10 or 11 mil, or maybe less than 1/5 of the salary cap.

15 million is way too much for any player to be making.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reason for the tax was to protect owners from themselves and it is working. The real goal of the tax is to drive down the number of big contracts and as you can see from the Deng, Gordon and Iggy negotiations this past summer and fall, it is working.

If in the next couple of years, salaries become normalized to the tax limit, then this really won't be much of an issue. On the other hand, what is overlooked is how much the players union screwed up by agreeing to this tax. The owners pulled a fast one on the players union and I don't expect the next round of CBA negotiations to be pretty because of this.

The tax isn't getting changed until the players union forces it to be changed as the owners are loving the tax income.</div>

Wow, you've made a great point there. I completely wasn't thinking about that when I just posted. Hopefully, eventually this will even out the max salaries, and we'll start to see alot less players earning 15+ million, and only one or two making 20+ million. It was beginning to get ridiculous, and I'm glad it's turning out this way.

 

"Really, the NBA is trading contracts, not players" - Ian Eagle

This is exactly why that rule about having a limit with difference of salaries in trades is complete bullshit. You should be able to trade one player for another, straight up, based on what you believe you should get/give for the player...not what you need to trade/receive in order for the trade to go through.

 

The cap's not too soft, GMs are just too stupid to pay realistic values for players. I'm actually glad this is near crisis point, it's a wakeup call for all these huge contracts that've been given out.